Skip to main content

Not adoptible commodities

The linked BBC story is to one where some children were left with their mother who killed them because she was mentally ill. One was aged 10 and therefore was clearly not someone who could be adopted easily.

On the other hand today I have heard of two stories involving social workers removing babies where there clearly is nothing like the threat that existed in respect of the case in Hackney.

Obviously we don't know the whole story as yet. It does, however, seem even moreso that the system is broken very badly.

Comments

moira said…
People are losing babies as social services say they may emotionally harm their children at a later date.

It's outrageous and I think it stems from prejudice from social workers who view certain groups in society as unfit to parent children,like those with disabilities etc.

Children should not be removed from their parents due to a possible emotional harm. It's like locking people up because they might commit a crime in the future.

What about the emotional damage caused to a baby or child that has developed a bond with its natural mother.

I am saddened to see that the family courts are not going to be open to scutiny so that families can continue to be destroyed by incompetent badly trained individuals.

What can we do to open these courts?Other countries manage to do this in a responsible manner
moira said…
Also note in the article that the father had notified concerns about the mother to social services and nothing was done.

We have heard this time and time again where social services have failed to respond to serious cases which have resulted in death.

Maybe they are too busy trying to achieve their adoption targets to get brownies points,and persecute families that really do love their children.Rather than respond to serious abuse of children.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…